RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:             JULY 8, 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:     AR2004102910


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Luis Almodova                 |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Gail Wire                     |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that her discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, in an addendum to her DD Form 149,
Application for Correction of Military Record, that she was a young bride
who was separated from her spouse and family for an extended period of
time.  While she was in Europe, her husband was injured and she came home
to assist him in his recovery.  During this time, her husband made it
extremely difficult for her to return to her duty assignment and after a
few months, he pressured her to return to the United States, which she did.
 She wanted to remain in the service of her country but was negatively
influenced.  Her husband constantly pressured her to leave the service.
She now realizes this was wrong but it was her action.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice that
occurred on 7 October 1980.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 12 October 2003.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve for 3 years on 17 May
1974.  On 2 August 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 2
years.  She successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Jackson,
South Carolina, and advanced individual training at Fort Lee, Virginia.  On
completion of her advanced training, she was awarded the military
occupational specialty (MOS) 76P, Stock Control and Accounting Specialist.

4.  On 27 February 1976, the applicant was given approval for a name change
based on marriage.

5.  The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 9 June 1976
for training and assignment in the MOS 91E, Dental Specialist.

6.  On 22 April 1977, the applicant successfully completed advanced
individual training at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, and was awarded the MOS 91E
as her primary MOS.

7.  The applicant was selected for promotion to the pay grade E-5 in the
MOS 91E on 13 July 1978.  She appeared before the promotion selection board
and while she was stationed at the US Army MEDDAC, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and
was recommended for promotion.

8.  On 29 June 1979, the applicant was assigned overseas to Germany.  She
was assigned to the US Army Medical Department Activity (USA MEDDAC),
in Bremerhaven, Germany.

9.  On 19 November 1979, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ) for absenting herself from her unit without authority, on 3
November 1979, and for remaining absent until 9 November 1979.  The imposed
punishment was a reduction to the rank and pay grade, Private First Class,
E-3; forfeiture of $100.00; 14 days extra duty and 14 days restriction.
The punishments were suspended until 2400 hours, 29 November 1979.  The
applicant appealed the punishment, and her appeal was granted, in part.  On
26 November 1979 the punishment was vacated.  The applicant acknowledged
the vacation of the punishment on 27 November 1979.

10.  On 20 March 1980, a DA Form 4187, Personnel Action, was prepared to
report the applicant's duty status from "Ordinary Leave" to "AWOL" (absent
without leave), effective 6 February 1980.

11.  On 20 March 1980, a DA Form 4187 was prepared changing the applicant's
duty status from "AWOL" to "DFR" (dropped from the rolls of the
organization) effective 7 March 1980.

12.  On 23 April 1980, the Commander, Personnel Control Facility (PCF),
Fort Sill, Oklahoma, prepared a DA Form 4187 to report that the applicant
had surrendered to military authorities and had returned to military
control at Fort Sill, effective 14 April 1980.

13.  On 25 April 1980, the Commander, PCF, prepared a DA Form 4187 to
change the applicant's status from "Present for Duty" to "AWOL," effective
0700 hours, 22 April 1980.

14.  On 14 May 1980, a DA Form 4187 was prepared changing the applicant's
duty status from "AWOL" to "DFR," effective 1200 hours, 13 May 1980.

15.  On 24 July 1980, the Commander, PCF, Fort Dix, New Jersey, prepared a
DA Form 4187 showing that the applicant had surrendered to military
authorities and had returned to military control at Fort Dix, effective
0700 hours, 17 July 1980.

16.  On her return to military control, the applicant was interviewed at
the PCF.  A summary of the interview was recorded on a FDCF Form 691A,
Personnel Control Facility Interview Sheet, dated 24 July 1980.  The reason
the applicant gave for going AWOL was that her husband was a civilian.  She
was sent to Germany and there was no way she could work out supporting her
husband in Germany.  She decided to save her marriage by leaving the Army.
She extended her enlistment to try and get help in sponsoring her husband.
Her AWOLs were for the same reason.  She wanted to save her marriage.  When
asked why she was not willing to soldier her way out of this adverse
situation, she replied that she wasn't sure.  She added that she did not
like the Army because no one cared.

17.  The evidence shows that on 24 July 1980, court-martial charges were
brought against the applicant for absenting herself from her unit on 6
February 1980 and remaining absent until 14 April 1980 and for absenting
herself from her unit on 22 April 1980 and remaining absent until 17 July
1980.

18.  On 29 July 1980, the applicant received a NJP for disobeying the
lawful command of a superior noncommissioned officer on 29 July 1980.
The imposed punishment was restriction to the limits of her unit, Company
A, US Army PCF, Fort Dix, New Jersey, and to perform extra duties for 7
days.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

19.  The evidence of record shows that on 30 July 1980, the applicant
consulted with counsel and submitted a request for discharge from the
service under chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service.  The
applicant waived her rights and opted not to submit a statement in her
behalf.

20.  In her request, the applicant acknowledged that she had not been
subjected to coercion with respect to her request for discharge and had
been advised of the implications attached to it.  She stated that she
understood that if discharged, under other than honorable conditions, and
furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge, that as a result of the
issuance of such a discharge, she understood she would be deprived of many
or all Army benefits and that she might be ineligible for many or all
benefits administered by the Veterans' Administration [now the Department
of Veterans' Affairs] and that she might be deprived of her rights and
benefits as a veteran, under both Federal and State law, and that she might
expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an
Under Other Than Honorable Discharge.

21.  The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of her request
and recommended that she be discharged with an under honorable conditions
discharge.  However, the separation authority, a brigadier general,
approved the applicant's discharge on 19 August 1980 and directed that she
be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank and pay grade and that she be
discharged with an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge (DD Form
794A).

22.  The applicant was discharged in the rank and pay grade of Private, E-
1, on 7 October 1980, under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200,
Chapter 10.  The Separation Code JFS (Administrative Discharge Conduct
Triable by Court Martial) was applied to the applicant's DD Form 214.  The
applicant's service was characterized as, "Under Conditions Other than
Honorable."

23.  On the date of her discharge, the applicant had completed 1 year and
1 month of service on her current enlistment with 4 years, 7 months, and 27
days total prior active service.

24.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons
Awarded or Authorized), of the applicant's DD Form 214, shows that she was
awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, and the
Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge, with Automatic Rifle Bar [M-16
Rifle].  The record contains no documentary evidence of acts of valor,
achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

25.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge
Review Board during its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of
her discharge.

26.  AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of
enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent
part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the
authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit, at any time
after the charges have been preferred, a request for discharge for the good
of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other
than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but the
separation authority may direct a general discharge or an honorable
discharge if such is merited by the soldier's overall record and if the
soldier's record is so meritorious that any other characterization clearly
would be improper.

27.  AR 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a
separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by
law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the
member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that
any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there
is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
28.  The above referred to regulation also defines a general discharge as a
separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it
is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not
sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A
characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the
reason for separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with the
commission of an offense punishable with a punitive discharge under the
UCMJ.

2.  After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and
in writing, requested separation from the Army under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial
by court-martial.  In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the
stipulated offense under the UCMJ.  There is no indication that the request
was made under coercion or duress.

3.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation, was administratively
correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  The evidence shows
that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4.  While she may now believe that she made the wrong choice, the applicant
should not be allowed to change her mind at this late date.  Additionally,
it is noted that it was the applicant who requested a discharge for the
good of the service to avoid the possibility of a punitive discharge and of
having a felony conviction on her records.

5.  The evidence shows that the applicant was aware, before requesting
discharge, that the characterization of service for this type of discharge
is normally Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

6.  The reason for discharge and the characterization of service appear to
be both proper and equitable.  Further, the evidence shows that the quality
of her service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and
performance expected of Army personnel; therefore, the applicant is not
entitled to an upgrade of her Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
Discharge to an under honorable conditions (general) discharge, or to an
honorable discharge.

7.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was on a list for
promotion to the pay grade E-5.  At this pay grade, an soldier is exposed
to supervisory duties
and is expected to counsel with soldiers in lower pay grades on the
resolution of problems such as those the applicant was experiencing.  A
soldier in the pay grade E-4 promotable is expected to also be aware of
individuals (the first sergeant, the unit commander, chaplains, counselors,
etc.) who can provide options to resolving issues.  The applicant admitted
that she was not willing to soldier her way out of an adverse situation
because she wanted to save her marriage and that she did not like the Army.
 There were no other justifiable reasons for the applicant, other than to
speed discharge proceedings against herself, to repeatedly go AWOL.

8.  From the evidence, it is apparent that personnel in leadership, both in
her unit and in the units to which she returned from her AWOL stints, were
lenient in addressing her violations of the UCMJ.

9.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy this requirement.

10.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request for an upgrade of his undesirable discharge.

11.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 7 October 1980; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 6 October 1983.  However, the applicant did not file
within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling
explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice
to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

gw______  kan_____  wdp_____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.





            ___Kathleen A. Newman___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004102910                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040708                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19801007                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, Chapter 10                  |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  360  |144.0000                                |
|2.  394                 |144.0133                                |
|3.  689                 |144.7000                                |
|4.  708                 |144.7100                                |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |



-----------------------
[pic]